The Center for Public Integrity is leading an effort to find out more about which companies are providing high-speed Internet access throughout the United States so that citizens have a better understanding of their service options.
A Center lawsuit filed under the Freedom of Information Act is attracting industry-wide interest.
The Center wants to make data about these companies publicly available online through Well Connected’s Media Tracker, a free, Internet-based database of the radio, television, newspaper and cable companies that is searchable by ZIP code. Media Tracker was first released in 2003, and updated and expanded in October and November 2006.
Publicly identifying the companies that provide broadband service would help give citizens a more complete understanding of who they could turn to for high-speed access — which is becoming increasingly important in economic development and the spread of information. The availability of competitive broadband service is an issue involved in a range of telecommunications policy debates, including Net neutrality, universal service and video competition.
Well Connected also tracks the political influence of the major players in the telecommunications, media and technology industries, supplying information on the companies culled from the Center’s lobbying, campaign contribution and privately sponsored travel data.
AT&T, Verizon Communications and three leading telecommunications trade groups filed court papers seeking to intervene or comment on the Center’s lawsuit last week. The top cable association is also seeking to weigh in. (Links to each of the documents in the official court docket are provided in the box to the right. It will be updated as further documents are filed.)
In court papers filed Jan. 8, AT&T and Verizon, together with the United States Telecom Association (to which both companies belong), objected to the release of the broadband data. Wireless Communications Association International, a trade group representing a range of wireless broadband service providers, said that it had also objected.
Separately, CTIA — the wireless association formerly known as the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association — supported the FCC in a “friend of the court” brief filed Jan. 8. A fourth association, the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, seeks to file a similar brief.
The Department of Justice and the FCC filed their response to the Center’s complaint on Jan. 8, the court-imposed deadline.
The Center’s reply to the government and to the intervening companies is due on April 3.
The database in question is referred to as the “Form 477” database, nicknamed after the number of an FCC document. The agency has required communications companies to provide data about the areas they serve, as well as other information, twice annually since 2000.
Although the FCC does not make the database public, it does produce a semi-annual report about broadband availability and competition that is based on the data.
The Center believes that release of the base data is important because the information will aid in the general public’s understanding of the importance of broadband.
Dating back to at least to April 2004, President George W. Bush declared that it was a national priority to spur the development of high-speed Internet service. “I’m talking about broadband technology to every corner of our country by the year 2007 with competition shortly thereafter,” Bush said then in remarks at the American Association of Community Colleges Annual Convention.
Knowing the identities of the companies would also allow the public to better gauge the reliability of the FCC’s own database. In a report released in May 2006, the Government Accountability Office discussed “information [received from the FCC] on the companies providing broadband service in ZIP codes throughout the United States.” The GAO’s analysis of Form 477 data allowed it to conclude that the median number of broadband providers within a ZIP code was two, rather than eight, as the FCC’s analysis of the data found.
Under the Freedom of Information Act, agencies have 20 working days to respond to requests. The Center’s FOIA request was hand-delivered to the agency on Aug. 24, 2006. When the agency failed to respond within the required period, the Center filed suit on Sept. 25.
The agency responded to the FOIA request in a letter faxed to the Center on Sept. 26, 2006. The Center filed an administrative appeal to the FCC’s rejection letter on Oct. 19. The FCC has not replied to the administrative appeal.
The case, Center for Public Integrity v. Federal Communications Commission, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The case had been assigned to Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on Sept. 25, 2006. But on Jan. 17, 2007, the case was reassigned to Judge Ellen S. Huvelle.
|Date Filed||Descriptive Title|
|8/24/2006||FOIA requested by CPI|
|9/25/2006||Complaint by CPI|
|9/25/2006||CPI Corporate Disclosure|
|9/26/2006||Decision By Wireless Competition Bureau|
|10/2/2006||Proof of Service by CPI|
|10/2/2006||Exhibit 1 – Declaration of Service on U.S. Attorney|
|10/2/2006||Exhibit 2 – Service by Mail on Defendant FCC|
|10/2/2006||Exhibit 3 – Service by Mail on Attorney General|
|10/5/2006||Notice of Appearance for FCC|
|10/19/2006||Administrative Appeal by CPI|
|10/24/2006||Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond by FCC|
|10/26/2006||Order by Judge Collyer|
|11/30/2006||Motion for Extension of Time to Respond by FCC|
|12/1/2006||Order by Judge Collyer|
|1/8/2007||Motion for Summary Judgment by FCC|
|1/8/2007||Statement of Material Facts|
|1/8/2007||Declaration by Alan I. Feldman [added by corrected filing 1/9]|
|1/8/2007||Exhibit – CPI’s FOIA Request|
|1/8/2007||Exhibit Decision by FCC|
|1/8/2007||Exhibit – CPI’s Administrative Appeal|
|1/8/2007||Form 477 and Instructions|
|1/8/2007||Decision on FOIA Request by ERS Group|
|1/8/2007||Unopposed Motion for Leave to File a Brief Amicus Curiae by CTIA-The Wireless Association|
|1/8/2007||Memorandum Supporting Motion|
|1/8/2007||Exhibit – Amicus Brief|
|1/8/2007||477 and Instructions|
|1/8/2007||Exhibit 2 – CPI’s FOIA Request|
|1/8/2007||Exhibit Public Notice|
|1/8/2007||Motion to Intervene|
|1/8/2007||Proposed Order [as corrected 1/12]|
|1/8/2007||Proposed Answer to the Complaint|
|1/8/2007||Proposed Motion for Summary Judgment|
|1/8/2007||Proposed Statement of Material Facts|
|1/8/2007||Declaration by ATT|
|1/8/2007||Declaration by Verizon|
|1/8/2007||Exhibit 3 – Declaration by Kevin J. Albaugh|
|1/8/2007||Exhibit 4 – Declaration by Colin S. Stretch|
|1/8/2007||Proposed Order (for Summary Judgment)|
|1/8/2007||ATT Corporate Disclosure|
|1/8/2007||USTA Corporate Disclosure|
|1/8/2007||Notice Of Appearance for ATT Inc VerizonUS Telecom Association|
|1/17/2007||Court Order Reassigning Case|
|1/8/2007||Motion to Intervene by Wireless Communications Association International|
|1/23/2007||Declaration of Marybeth M. Banks|
|1/23/2007||Declaration of Ralph Diaz|
|1/23/2007||Corporate Disclosure by WCAI|
|1/23/2007||Proposed Answer by WCAI|
|1/23/2007||Declaration of Terri B. Natoli|
|1/23/2007||Proposed Order by WCAI|
|1/23/2007||Notice of Appearance for WCAI|
Order by Judge HuvelleORDER granting the Unopposed Motion of CTIA – The Wireless Association for Leave to File a Brief Amicus Curiae, granting the Unopposed Motion of AT&T Inc., Verizon, and the United States Telecom Association to Intervene, and granting the Motion of the Wireless Communications Association International to Intervene as a Defendant. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file and docket the Amicus Brief submitted by CTIA with its motion for leave to file, the Answer and Motion for Summary Judgment of Intervenor-Defendants AT&T Inc., Verizon, and the United States Telecom Association submitted with their motion to intervene, and the Answer of Defendant-Intervenor Wireless Communications Association International submitted with its motion to intervene. Counsel for the parties are directed to confer and jointly submit a proposed briefing schedule to the Court on or before February 5, 2007. Signed by Judge Ellen S. Huvelle on 1/25/2007.
|10/28/2006||Motion for Leave to File a Brief Amicus Curiae by National Cable & Telecommunications Association|
|1/26/2007||Exhibit – Amicus Brief by NCTA|
|1/26/2007||Corporate Disclosure by NCTA|
|1/26/2007||Proposed Order by NCTA|
Order by Judge HuvelleORDER granting the Unopposed Motion of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) for Leave to File a Brief Amicus Curiae. The Clerk of the Court is directed to docket and file the proposed amicus brief submitted by the NCTA with its motion. Signed by Judge Ellen S. Huvelle on 1/26/2007.
|2/5/2007||Consent Motion for Order to Set Briefing Schedule by Center for Public Integrity|
Order by Judge HuvelleORDER granting plaintiff’s Consent Motion for Scheduling Order. Defendant-intervenor Wireless Communications Association International shall file a motion for summary judgment on or before February 20, 2007. Plaintiff shall file an opposition to the motions for summary jugment and a cross-motion for summary judgment on or before March 27, 2007. Defendant shall file a reply and opposition to cross-motion on or before April 17, 2007. Defendant-intervenors and amici may file a reply and/or opposition to cross-motion on or before April 24, 2007. Plaintiff shall file a reply on or before May 15, 2007. Signed by Judge Ellen S. Huvelle on 2/5/2007.
|2/20/2007||Motion for Summary Judgment by WCAI|
|2/20/2007||Memorandum of Points and Authorities by WCAI|
|3/27/2007||Consent Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply by CPI|
|3/27/2007||Proposed Order by CPI|
Order by Judge HuvelleORDER granting plaintiff’s Consent Motion for Enlargement of Time in Which to File Opposition and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff shall file its opposition to the motions for summary judgment and a cross-motion for summary judgment on or before April 3, 2007. Defendant shall file a reply and opposition to cross-motion on or before April 24, 2007. Defendant-intervenors and amici may file a reply and/or opposition to cross motion on or before May 1, 2007. Plaintiff shall file a reply on or before May 22, 2007. Signed by Judge Ellen S. Huvelle on 3/27/2007.
|4/3/2007||Cross Motion for Summary Judgment by CPI|
|4/3/2007||Statement of Facts by CPI|
|4/3/2007||Declaration of Brendan McGarry|
|4/3/2007||Exhibit 2 by CPI|
|4/3/2007||Proposed Order by CPI|
|4/24/2007||Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply by FCC|
|4/24/2007||Proposed Order by FCC|
|4/24/2007||Proposed Order by FCC|
Order by Judge HuvelleORDER granting Defendant Federal Communications Commission’s Unopposed Motion for Enlargement of Time. Defendant shall file its reply in support of motion for summary judgment and opposition to plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment on or before May 15, 2007. Defendant intervenors and amici shall file an opposition to plaintiff’s cross-motion on or before May 22, 2007. Plaintiff shall file a reply on or before June 12, 2007. Signed by Judge Ellen S. Huvelle on 4/24/2007.
|5/15/2007||Memorandum in opposition to Cross Motion for Summary Judgment by FCC|
|5/15/2007||Supplemental Declaration of Alan I. Feldman|
|5/15/2007||Proposed Order by FCC|
|5/22/2007||Memorandum in opposition to Cross Motion for Summary Judgment by AT&T, USTA and Verizon|
|5/22/2007||Response to Statement of Facts by AT&T, USTA and Verizon|
|5/22/2007||Proposed Order by AT&T, USTA and Verizon|
|5/22/2007||Memorandum in opposition to Cross Motion for Summary Judgment by WCAI|
|5/22/2007||Proposed Order by WCAI|
|6/12/20077||Reply to opposition to motion re Cross Motion for Summary Judgment by CPI|
|6/12/2007||Declaration of Clair Kaye|
|8/6/2007||Order by Judge Huvelle|
|8/14/2007||Response to Order of the Court by FCC|
|8/14/2007||Second Supplemental Declaration of Alan I. Feldman|
|8/14/2007||Response to Order of the Court by AT&T, USTA and Verizon|
|8/27/2007||Memorandum Opinion by Judge Huvelle|
|8/27/2007||Order by Judge Huvelle|
Help support this work
Public Integrity doesn’t have paywalls and doesn’t accept advertising so that our investigative reporting can have the widest possible impact on addressing inequality in the U.S. Our work is possible thanks to support from people like you.